logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 440

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

I watched the first few moments of it already. It seemed like more of the same from the 1st video.

Which you also only watched a few moments of? Lol

Author
Time

That one I watched a couple of minutes.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

‘Jerusalem’ the poem (set to music) isn’t literally about the actual city of Jerusalem, it’s about England.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

No matter how you slice it, this is pretty horrific.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ousted-fox-news-host-eric-bolling-19-year-old-son-found-dead-article-1.3482934

Former Fox News host Eric Bolling’s 19-year-old son was found dead Friday evening.

Eric Chase Bolling’s untimely death came hours after the network announced the elder Bolling’s departure from “The Specialists.” His ouster came after he was accused of sending unsolicited photos of his genitalia to three female colleagues.

The younger Bolling studied economics at the University of Colorado Boulder, according to his Facebook profile. It’s unclear how he died.

He was Bolling’s only son with wife Adrienne.
“Adrienne and I are devastated by the loss of our beloved son Eric Chase last night. Details still unclear. Thoughts, prayers appreciated,” Bolling tweeted Saturday afternoon.

Multiple reports said that the teenager took his own life, leading Bolling to tweet again.

“Authorities have informed us there is no sign of self harm at this point. Autopsy will be next week. Please respect our grieving period,” he said in the follow-up tweet.

HuffPost reporter Yashar Ali broke the news of his death on Twitter Saturday.

“Very sad news, Eric Bolling’s son, who was only 19, died last night. By all accounts, Eric was incredibly devoted to his son. Heartbreaking,” Ali tweeted.

Ali cited 14 sources who accused the network host of sexting in an earlier HuffPost report.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.

As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not still exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject. As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law or right for the Monarchy to currently vote.

Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…

 

Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.

As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject.

Just the way people were talking is all. I stand corrected.

As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law for the Monarchy to currently vote.

I could have sworn the Monarch isn’t allowed to vote in elections.

Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…

 

nonetheless, it is obvious where the name comes from.

Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?

The buildings you listed aren’t just any ordinary historic buildings. They are national landmarks. This isn’t about who currently lives in them, this is about their historic importance. In American importance historic landmarks can get government funding to help preserve them.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.

As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject.

Just the way people were talking is all. I stand corrected.

Who is talking in this way?

As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law for the Monarchy to currently vote.

I could have sworn the Monarch isn’t allowed to vote in elections.

No, they are allowed vote. I suggest further reading on the subject if you are mistakenly thinking or stating otherwise.

Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…

 

nonetheless, it is obvious where the name comes from.

The title of the anthem is, as has been pointed out already, irrelevant - it is the aspiration and content (which directly refers to England) to which the lyrics and meaning of the song that has importance - and not the title.

Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?

The buildings you listed aren’t just any ordinary historic buildings. They are national landmarks. This isn’t about who currently lives in them, this is about their historic importance. In American importance historic landmarks can get government funding to help preserve them.

It’s not about what historic landmarks in America getting government funding - that is not the benchmark and is somewhat of a false equivalency. The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

According to this video, £2.60 are saved per person because of the royal family. This is not to discredit anybody’s argument, just thought it’d be interesting to share.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yhwx said:

According to this video, £2.60 are saved per person because of the royal family. This is not to discredit anybody’s argument, just thought it’d be interesting to share.

Some would rather everyone’s (sixty million people?) annual contribution go to more worthy causes than a multi-millionaire tax dodger (a voluntary contributory agreement on her behalf - yet the Sovereign Grant income is not taxed) relying on Govt funding whilst increasing her personal fortune throughout - and that’s before the multi-million handouts for maintenance of properties she lives in and is already responsible for, as well as subsidies for other properties and lands.

Though that’s just part of a modernisation process - not the abolition of the Monarchy itself.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.

As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject.

Just the way people were talking is all. I stand corrected.

Who is talking in this way?

I misunderstood. Sorry. Like I said, I stand corrected.

As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law for the Monarchy to currently vote.

I could have sworn the Monarch isn’t allowed to vote in elections.

No, they are allowed vote. I suggest further reading on the subject if you are mistakenly thinking or stating otherwise.

I stand corrected again. I know in the movie “The Queen” it talks like the Sovereign isn’t allow to vote. Is there at least a custom that the Monarch doesn’t vote?

Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…

 

nonetheless, it is obvious where the name comes from.

The title of the anthem is, as has been pointed out already, irrelevant - it is the aspiration and content (which directly refers to England) to which the lyrics and meaning of the song that has importance - and not the title.

Maybe you right.

Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?

The buildings you listed aren’t just any ordinary historic buildings. They are national landmarks. This isn’t about who currently lives in them, this is about their historic importance. In American importance historic landmarks can get government funding to help preserve them.

It’s not about what historic landmarks in America getting government funding - that is not the benchmark and is somewhat of a false equivalency.

How so?

The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.

Well I don’t much about what when on and what it is the Royals were supposed to do but didn’t, nor why they didn’t. I just think the bare minimum should be done to preserve the historic landmarks. If the Royals can do that, fine. If they truly can not, I don’t think the solution is to let them fall apart.

Author
Time

So last week or so, I heard a BBC news story about Trump’s DACA decision. Although they included the fairly typical pro and con arguments from advocate for either side of the position, what struck me is that the “pro” argument came from a member of an SPLC-designated hate group, but one with a radio-friendly name (Center for Immigration Studies, so bland, so neutral-sounding). Furthermore, they didn’t indicate this for the listener as I think would be appropriate under the circumstances.

I’m sure they got a lot of flack from their listeners about this, and news organizations may have now started vetting their talking heads for white supremacists ties before airing them, or at least including the disclaimer “this person is a member of a known hate group” when they do. Or at least something like “BBC News tried to find someone supporting this policy who was not also a member of a hate group, but failed to find one,” which I think would be the most appropriate action for a news organization.

And now… FOX “News” is runs a hit piece on the SPLC:

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/09/08/splc-demands-correction-fox-news

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

‘Jerusalem’ the poem (set to music) isn’t literally about the actual city of Jerusalem, it’s about England.

In fact it’s specifically about Jerusalem not being in England 😄 It’s a warning about not being complacent and too nationalistic and it’s sung frequently by people who are complacently nationalistic.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.

Well I don’t much about what when on and what it is the Royals were supposed to do but didn’t, nor why they didn’t. I just think the bare minimum should be done to preserve the historic landmarks. If the Royals can do that, fine. If they truly can not, I don’t think the solution is to let them fall apart.

No-one has suggested that the solution is to let them fall apart.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

‘Jerusalem’ the poem (set to music) isn’t literally about the actual city of Jerusalem, it’s about England.

In fact it’s specifically about Jerusalem not being in England 😄 It’s a warning about not being complacent and too nationalistic and it’s sung frequently by people who are complacently nationalistic.

"The poem was inspired by the apocryphal story that a young Jesus, accompanied by Joseph of Arimathea, a tin merchant, travelled to what is now England and visited Glastonbury during his unknown years.[2][3] The poem’s theme is linked to the Book of Revelation (3:12 and 21:2) describing a Second Coming, wherein Jesus establishes a New Jerusalem. The Christian church in general, and the English Church in particular, has long used Jerusalem as a metaphor for Heaven, a place of universal love and peace.[a]

In the most common interpretation of the poem, Blake implies that a visit by Jesus would briefly create heaven in England, in contrast to the “dark Satanic Mills” of the Industrial Revolution. Blake’s poem asks four questions rather than asserting the historical truth of Christ’s visit. Thus the poem merely implies that there may, or may not, have been a divine visit, when there was briefly heaven in England"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time

Author
Time

oojason said:

Warbler said:

The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.

Well I don’t much about what when on and what it is the Royals were supposed to do but didn’t, nor why they didn’t. I just think the bare minimum should be done to preserve the historic landmarks. If the Royals can do that, fine. If they truly can not, I don’t think the solution is to let them fall apart.

No-one has suggested that the solution is to let them fall apart.

Well what do you think will happen eventually if they go unrepaired for long enough?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

As for the whether the Queen can vote, I found something here:

http://www.newsweek.com/british-election-can-queen-vote-royal-family-prince-william-kate-middleton-622958

" “Although not prohibited by law,” the U.K. parliament website says, “it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.” "

So it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote.

Yet you said ‘…that they should have the right to vote’ - to which I replied they already have that right to vote, which they do - so the Queen can vote - whether constitutional or not, or considered constitutional or not.

Warbler said:

Well what do you think will happen eventually if they go unrepaired for long enough?

The Royals would have eventually pay the repairs themselves? - as they are on the ones living in them, and are responsible for the upkeep of them - as has been repeatedly said before, no?
 

I think this ends the conversation on the subject as it seems we’re going in ever-decreasing circles here.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

‘Jerusalem’ the poem (set to music) isn’t literally about the actual city of Jerusalem, it’s about England.

In fact it’s specifically about Jerusalem not being in England 😄 It’s a warning about not being complacent and too nationalistic and it’s sung frequently by people who are complacently nationalistic.

It’s bit like David Cameron professing to his love of The Jam’s Eton Rifles - with Weller remarking that Cameron obviously didn’t understand the song… (‘which bit didn’t he get?’) 😃

 

Aye, I agree with this take on Blake’s Jerusalem…

http://socialistreview.org.uk/372/blakes-jerusalem

 

though would equally be open for anything by Transvision Vamp or Half Man Half Biscuit too for a new national anthem 😉

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

oojason said:

Warbler said:

As for the whether the Queen can vote, I found something here:

http://www.newsweek.com/british-election-can-queen-vote-royal-family-prince-william-kate-middleton-622958

" “Although not prohibited by law,” the U.K. parliament website says, “it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.” "

So it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote.

Yet you said ‘…that they should have the right to vote’ - to which I replied they already have that right to vote, which they do - so the Queen can vote - whether constitutional or not, or considered constitutional or not.

I said that before I knew that it wasn’t prohibited by law. Now however, I am confused. If it is not Constitutional for her to vote, then she doesn’t really have the right to vote. Also if it is not constitutional for her to vote, doesn’t that mean it is unlawful for her to vote? Maybe it is different in your country, but in mine, the Constitutional is the highest level of law in our country. If something in our country is unconstitutional, it is but definition unlawful.

Warbler said:

Well what do you think will happen eventually if they go unrepaired for long enough?

The Royals would have eventually pay the repairs themselves? - as they are on the ones living in them, and are responsible for the upkeep of them - as has been repeatedly said before, no?

What if they truly can not afford the needed repairs themselves?

 

I think this ends the conversation on the subject as it seems we’re going in ever-decreasing circles here.

perhaps we shall see.

Author
Time

By maintaining a royal association with these properties, they generate additional tourist activity, which generates additional revenue from admissions and gift shops and taxes. Some of the tax revenue is used to pay for upkeep.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

You guys are accusing Warbler of fetishization of The Star Spangled Banner, but what I want to know is, why is it such a big deal to you that it’s such a big deal to Warbler?

Why do you have to constantly berate him for holding the flag and/or the anthem sacred and believing that others ought to do the same? Let the man have his opinion. Dang.

You make no effort to understand why Warbler feels the way he does, nor lend any weight to a possibility that his position might have merit. You just want to prove him wrong, as though such a thing were possible in a subjective topic like this, by making him explain himself until he can’t think of a strong enough rebuttal.

Thank you, Chyron8472.

You’re welcome.

To be clear, that doesn’t mean I agree (nor do I disagree; again, I really am on the fence). I just can understand where you might be coming from on the topic.

It’s just, in reading a long back and forth on the topic here all at once, I was starting to get a sense of the right’s argument that the left is actually equally as intolerant to opposing view, despite the left’s official claims to the contrary.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

well at least someone does.